COMPLEXITY THEORY
Complexity theory — or more recently, the “science of complexity” — arose from the study of living systems, and has been attracting esoteric interest among a very wide variety of disciplines for the past two decades. Perhaps most familiar examples of complexity theory are those drawn from evolutionary study, where organisms (over time) adapt to and even modify complex environments, creating unusually stable, yet complex systems. In such systems one component of an ecosystem cannot be understood in isolation from the context or total environment in which it lives (for an example, see chapter 10). Complexity theory teaches us to look for the emergent behaviours that arise when autonomous, yet interdependent organisms interact with each other. In particular, theorists look for and attempt to predict “transformations or phase transitions that provide the markers for growth, change, or learning” (Horn, 2008). Complexity theorists are often at odds with positivist researchers and educators who attempt to eliminate or control all the variables that affect a learning transaction. Rather, complexity seeks to create learning activities that allow effective behaviour to emerge and evolve and ineffective ideas to be extinguished. Conversely, complexity theorists seek to understand features of the environment, and especially the social or structural norms or organizations we create that resist either overt or covert attempts at self-organization. McElroy (2000) notes that “the point at which emergent behaviours inexplicably arise, lies somewhere between order and chaos” (p. 196). This sweet spot has been called the “edge of chaos,” where systems “exhibit wild bursts of creativity and produce new and novel behaviours at the level of the whole system … complex systems innovate by producing spontaneous, systemic bouts of novelty out of which new patterns of behavior emerge” (McElroy, 2000, p. 196). Implications of complexity theory for learning and for education operate on at least two levels. At the level of the individual learner, complexity theory, like constructivist theory, supports the learner’s acquisition of skills and power such that he or she can articulate and achieve personal learning goals (chapters 6 and 9). By noting the presence of agents and structures that both support and impede the emergence of effective adaptive behaviour, individual learners are better able to influence and indeed survive in often threatening and always complex learning environments. At the level of organization of either formal or informal learning, complexity theory highlights the social structures that we create to manage that learning. When these management functions begin to inhibit the emergence of positive adaptive behaviour or give birth and sustain behaviours that are not conducive to deep learning, we can expect negative results. Organizational structures should help us to surf at the “edge of chaos,” not function to eliminate or constrain the creative potential of actors engaged at this juncture. Further, this understanding can guide us to create and manage these complex environments not with a goal of controlling or even completely understanding learning, but with a goal of creating systems in which learning emerges rapidly and profoundly. Complexity theory also encourages us to think of learning contexts (classrooms, online learning cohorts, etc.) as entities themselves. These entities can be healthy or sick; emerging, growing, or dying. By thinking at the systems level, reformers search for interventions that promote healthy adaptation and the emergence of cultures, tools, and languages that produce healthy human beings. Finally, complexity theory helps us to understand and work with the inevitable unanticipated events that emerge when disruptive technologies are used in once stable systems (Christensen, 1997). Learning to surf this wave of equal opportunity and danger (and do it masterfully) becomes the goal of educational change agents. The teaching and learning theories derived from all three of these pre-Net visions for technology-enhanced learning and related theories of learning still resonate with and add value to educators and researchers today. However, to paraphrase the syllogism that “the Net changes everything,” I next turn to theories that have evolved since the development of the Web and deliberately exploit the affordances of this new context for teaching and learning. Categoría:EDUCATIONAL